header-logo header-logo

02 June 2011
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No blanket ban on referral fees

LSB to undertake further review in 2013

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has rejected an outright ban on referral fees.

It consulted last year on its recommendations to strengthen transparency rather than a ban as a means of preventing abuse. It has now fully endorsed this approach, in its document, Referral Fees, Referral Arrangements and Fee Sharing.

However, the eight individual regulators can still opt for a ban as long as they can back it up with evidence and reasons. They must ensure consumers know when and to whom referral fees are to be paid.

The Law Society said it was a “mistaken decision by the LSB, which has failed to act in the public interest”.

However, Seamus Smyth, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, welcomed the decision: “Robust controls are, however, required and the payment of cash incentives should be banned.”

Tim Oliver, president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, said the proposals “raise concerns at the potential for a mish-mash of regulatory decisions on referral fees... The LSB states in its paper that it wants to ensure a ‘consistent regulatory approach to the issue’—it is hard to see how that might be achieved.”

The LSB said it would take into account the extent to which consumer outcomes are served when considering applications by regulators to change their regulatory arrangements. It will also undertake a further review of referral fees in 2013–14.

David Greene, partner at Edwin Coe, said: “Opposition to payments made by solicitors for business is a rare point on which Lord Justice Jackson and the Law Society can agree.

“Jackson saw referral fees reflecting surplus costs in the system but others argue that a ban on referral fees would merely see a shift of cost from referral fees to other methods of generating business.”

Professor Dominic Regan said: “Given that the thrust of this administration is to reduce what Lord Young considered to be `meddlesome intervention’ I see no will to legislate on referral fees. At best we will see guidelines and unenforceable principles laid down.”

Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll